Nominating DavidtheDavid 1 1

[telerites]

3 hours ago, flikhype said:

I'm quoting this just in case you fellas missed it and require some proper legal advice. 

but jokes aside, with all statements provided, both side of claims seem legit. All of us as outsiders and not being there when the event took place, really cannot call for who is right or wrong. Unless one of us has an eye over the book from point A to point B and could pin point where exactly went wrong.

Like to highlight again that one of the suggestions to sell it on a neutral platform and split the difference (or the entire book sale) would be a good idea to resolve this case, since either party would not want to keep the book. Instead of having this go on and then one party would be forced to foot the bill and with the anger penned up within....it's bad for the blood pressure.

Just sharing. I had somewhat a similar unsolvable case years back. Bought a low grade Action Comics from a rather reputable seller here. Promised at least a 2.0 or 3.0. Had him sent direct to another trusted boardie to help me with CGC sub because that first seller wouldn't do it. Came back a 0.5 missing 3 pages incomplete. I notified first seller once, and he replied "Oh? That shouldn't be." and that's it. I decided not to pursue. No point. There were too many loopholes. And it was me who chose to buy, chose the mailing option, chose the handler. I can only chose to accept in the end.

I've spoke to one of you before, really nice and understanding chap. Hope all these could be resolved in a calm manner.

 

 

 

I actually ask the seller to count pages for me on raws.  I do share how the pages are counted, e.g., covers would be 4 pages.  I do it on Ebay a lot and my focus is GA collecting.  I find some with missing CFs and pages.  Sellers have thanked me before for letting them know what the count should be and restarted the auction with the noted pages missing.  

I do it too with dealers as they may process a lot of books and may miss something and I count pages when it arrives.  I learned after a similar experience back when I started GA collecting in the late 70s.  I use the GCD and Keltner's guide a lot.

Edited June 29, 2017 by telerites

[DavidTheDavid]

6 hours ago, CAHokie said:

Maxwell, may I ask what you did to get a Police Detective to promise to respond and watch you open your book?  This is highly irregular as they have actual crimes to solve and not worry about the creased corner of a comic book.  Especially for a case that is a textbook civil matter.  Did you file a crime report and if so what is the crime you accused David of doing?

@Mxwll Smrt Please respond.

[Mxwll Smrt]

1 hour ago, DavidTheDavid said:

@Mxwll Smrt Please respond.

The case is with Paypal and David has been requested to provide more information. When Paypal makes its decision, I will respond accordingly. This is your response. BTW, love the new avatar.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Mxwll Smrt

[DavidTheDavid]

1 hour ago, Mxwll Smrt said:

The case is with Paypal and David has been requested to provide more information. When Paypal makes its decision, I will respond accordingly. This is your response. BTW, love the new avatar.

 

On 6/24/2017 at 2:30 PM, Mxwll Smrt said:

 

Again, the absence of your explanation to the comment on the 17th screams and is what everyone is looking at now. 

Don't dodge. People might think you're operating off a double standard.

[Mxwll Smrt]

13 minutes ago, DavidTheDavid said:

 

Don't dodge. People might think you're operating off a double standard.

Incorrect. Kettle, pot. Pot, kettle. People might think I know how to do something that you don't and it doesn't mean I need to disclose it no matter how much you protest.

[RockMyAmadeus]

17 hours ago, wombat said:

Didn't the seller accuse the buyer of fraud? With good faith like that..........

Accusing someone of something isn't acting in "bad faith", unless the accuser knows the accused is not guilty of the accusation.

Inappropriate, yes, ill-conceived, yes, rushed judgment, yes...but not acting in bad faith.

Telling a seller the they are satisfied with the transaction, even though the buyer admits to there being a concern beforehand, , and subsequently notifying the seller 6-7 days after the fact that there is, in fact, a very serious problem can be argued convincingly is an example of acting in bad faith.

More importantly, leaving out the details of that interaction in the Paypal claim is, without doubt, acting in bad faith.

[RockMyAmadeus]

18 hours ago, Red84 said:

To those of you claiming DavidTheDavid should have just stepped away and let Mxwell Smart cool off, how many of you would have backed away when accused of intentionally defrauding someone?  Ridiculous.  

True....IF the buyer had done his due diligence, and NOT told the seller that everything was satisfactory, only to do a complete 180 6-7 days later.

In that light, not ridiculous at all.

That is the sticking point to all of this: the buyer said everything was satisfactory, even though he later admitted that he had had a concern open receipt. And, in case the note to the seller wasn't adequate, the buyer left a post in the seller's "kudos", which is, if I'm not mistaken, the generally accepted "transaction certified as complete" method we have on the boards, is it not?

That the buyer didn't recognize this, and, instead of being conciliatory about his very serious error, simply answered hostility and accusation with hostility and accusation of his own, which he has yet to rescind or even acknowledge, is where this whole issue hangs.

No doubt, the seller should have controlled his reactions...no doubt.

But if I were in this situation, and I told the seller I was happy with the transaction, and publicly announced that satisfaction, only to change my mind after the fact, I would reasonably expect a measure of suspicion on the part of the seller. Again: the seller had no reason to think the buyer was anything less than satisfied...and markedly so.

I would say "Oh, man, I'm sorry. I thought it was ok, but I didn't notice this problem. Is there anything we can do? I'm sorry for telling you everything was satisfactory; I've been (insert excuse here.)"

...and then, I would accept the seller's judgment, because I hadn't done my due diligence.

[Red84]

I'm sorry, but calling in detectives is bonkers.  There is a window of time during which the book was damaged.  That was some time after the initial scans were taken by the seller and before the scans were taken by the buyer.  Unless there is a hidden video recording someone's evil scheme there is nothing to investigate.

[RockMyAmadeus]

18 hours ago, Red84 said:

 Most of the accusations and suggestions made are just noise from which no one here is benefiting.  

I disagree entirely; at a minimum, those reading this thread will make sure they do their due diligence, and know that if they don't, they won't have much recourse here.

MUCH good is likely to result, benefitting many.

[RockMyAmadeus]

5 hours ago, DavidTheDavid said:

@Mxwll Smrt Please respond.

 

Hi! Still wondering why, in your claim filed with Paypal, you neglected to tell them that you had initially informed the seller that you were satisfied with the transaction, even leaving public notice of such satisfaction, before reversing course a week later?

Is it because you believed that it would severely weaken your "item not as described" claim if you told Paypal that?

Also, do you plan to rectify that omission with Paypal, and if so, how?

@DavidTheDavid Please respond.

[Red84]

51 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

19 hours ago, Red84 said:

 Most of the accusations and suggestions made are just noise from which no one here is benefiting.  

I disagree entirely; at a minimum, those reading this thread will make sure they do their due diligence, and know that if they don't, they won't have much recourse here.

MUCH good is likely to result, benefitting many.

What are you even talking about? This situation is not even remotely close to a PL case.  The key fact of when the book was damaged is unknowable.  You love to talk about these transactions as if they are finely tuned contracts, well unfortunately they are not.  Sometimes deals just work out poorly.  This is one of them.  I will say that a lot of people reading this thread have probably learned that dealing with certain people is more trouble than its worth.  So, to your point about people benefiting from this thread, that much is true.

 

57 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

buyer left a post in the seller's "kudos", which is, if I'm not mistaken, the generally accepted "transaction certified as complete" method we have on the boards, is it not?

Most people don't even leave kudos.  His kudos was an extension of his cursory look over the book confirming he received it.  He probably assumed everything about the book was as it should be and therefore didn't review it carefully.  that was a mistake on his part, but not a mistake so fatal as to deny him any sort of recourse once he discovered problems later on.

To me, the most damning part of this entire transaction has been the behavior of the seller.  He went from 0 to 60 in accusing the buyer of defrauding him.  He told the buyer to return the book and then got angry when the buyer returned the book.  He told the buyer to open a paypal claim and then got angry when the buyer opened a paypal claim.  He told the buyer he would send him money when he received the book (which by the way is a full refund.  You don't talk about sending money at a specific time if you are only planning to discuss the amount at a later date.) and now he is holding the book and the money.  And finally, he brings in detectives to find the truth which is laughable in its ridiculousness. 

The whole thing has been a circus and to go back to your earlier point, people sure are learning to do their due diligence about who they deal with and whether it's worth the trouble.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Red84
switched buyer and seller. Thanks to RMA for pointing it out.

[Red84]

20 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Hi! Still wondering why, in your claim filed with Paypal, you neglected to tell them that you had initially informed the seller that you were satisfied with the transaction, even leaving public notice of such satisfaction, before reversing course a week later?

Is it because you believed that it would severely weaken your "item not as described" claim if you told Paypal that?

Also, do you plan to rectify that omission with Paypal, and if so, how?

@DavidTheDavid Please respond.

His initial review of the book is not a material fact that affects the outcome.  The claim is that the item he received is not as described.  If you buy an apple from me and when you open the package you see it's apple shaped and thank me.  But a few days later you actually open the bag and discover it's an orange, your earlier incorrect belief that it was an apple doesn't change that what it actually is is an orange.

[RockMyAmadeus]

6 minutes ago, Red84 said:

What are you even talking about?

I thought I was pretty clear, but if not, I'll clarify: those reading this thread can (and, in some cases, will) use it as a cautionary lesson in doing one's due diligence, and not being premature in expressing one's satisfaction with something.

8 minutes ago, Red84 said:

This situation is not even remotely close to a PL case.

True, as I and others have said earlier, with the possible exception of the glaring omission of relevant facts in the Paypal claim opened by the buyer. That, I think, could reasonably rise to the level of the PL.

9 minutes ago, Red84 said:

The key fact of when the book was damaged is unknowable.

True and undisputed, by anyone except possibly the seller and the buyer.

9 minutes ago, Red84 said:

You love to talk about these transactions as if they are finely tuned contracts, well unfortunately they are not.

Very true! They most certainly are not, hence the thread, and the discussion. I'm not quite sure how anyone can make contentions about what other people "love" on the internet...not sure how you know my state of mind...but that aside, if you carefully read this thread, you'll see that it's precisely because they AREN'T finely tuned contracts that we are having this discussion. Sorting out who said what, where, when, how, and why, and what it all ultimately means, is part of the problem and process.

I promise, however, that I won't make claims about what you do, and do not, "love", or other contentions about your state of mind, since that would be an overreach on my (or anyone's) part.

15 minutes ago, Red84 said:

Sometimes deals just work out poorly.  This is one of them.  

True, but it is WHY this deal worked out poorly that needs to be resolved.

15 minutes ago, Red84 said:

I will say that a lot of people reading this thread have probably learned that dealing with certain people is more trouble than its worth.  So, to your point about people benefiting from this thread, that much is true.

Absolutely! There are many people here, and elsewhere, with whom I choose not to do business because of their conduct on message boards, and I know that to be true for others with regard to me. It saves potential headaches when potentially dealing with the unstable and/or immoral.

 

17 minutes ago, Red84 said:

Most people don't even leave kudos.

True, but not relevant in this situation, because kudos were, in fact, left. Not leaving kudos isn't indicative of anything, true...but leaving kudos is.

18 minutes ago, Red84 said:

His kudos was an extension of his cursory look over the book confirming he received it.

You're going to have a verrrry difficult time convincing many other people that "leaving kudos" is a merely an expression of a CURSORY look over an item.

20 minutes ago, Red84 said:

He probably assumed everything about the book was as it should be and therefore didn't review it carefully.  that was a mistake on his part, but not a mistake so fatal as to deny him any sort of recourse once he discovered problems later on.

Oh, on the contrary! Here's why: first, the buyer admits to having a concern PRIOR TO telling the seller he was satisfied, and leaving kudos, but ignored his own concern. Admittedly, I have watched a lot of court TV, and, while not law school for sure, there is valuable information to be imparted, and one of those is that those who assume are called "litigants", and more often than not, "losing litigants." You have made the very definition of a lack of due diligence: he "probably assumed everything about the book was as it should be."

Buyers don't have the right to assume, then make claims after the fact, for all sorts of reasons.

Second, no one is denying him ANY sort of recourse...just that he should accept responsibility for the damage, because of his negligence. That doesn't mean he loses $1500! The book, after all, isn't destroyed.

26 minutes ago, Red84 said:

To me, the most damning part of this entire transaction has been the behavior of the seller.  He went from 0 to 60 in accusing the buyer of defrauding him.  He told the seller to return the book and then got angry when the buyer returned the book.  He told the seller to open a paypal claim and then got angry when the buyer opened a paypal claim.  He told the buyer he would send him money when he received the book (which by the way is a full refund.  You don't talk about sending money at a specific time if you are only planning to discuss the amount at a later date.) and now he is holding the book and the money.  And finally, he brings in detectives to find the truth which is laughable in its ridiculousness. 

All true (except that the seller told the BUYER to return the book, not the SELLER)...and none of which rises to the level of negligence in which the buyer engaged.

What is right and ethical isn't determined by emotions.

We can dispute what "telling the buyer he would send him money" means. Obviously, the seller didn't say "you get a full and total refund, regardless of the circumstances."

What you are doing here...which I don't have a problem with, by the way...is treating the SELLER'S words like a "finely tuned contract", while downplaying the buyer's actions.

Can't have it both ways.

30 minutes ago, Red84 said:

The whole thing has been a circus and to go back to your earlier point, people sure are learning to do their due diligence about who they deal with and whether it's worth the trouble.

Very true!

 

 

 

[Mxwll Smrt]

12 minutes ago, Red84 said:

What are you even talking about? This situation is not even remotely close to a PL case.  The key fact of when the book was damaged is unknowable.  You love to talk about these transactions as if they are finely tuned contracts, well unfortunately they are not.  Sometimes deals just work out poorly.  This is one of them.  I will say that a lot of people reading this thread have probably learned that dealing with certain people is more trouble than its worth.  So, to your point about people benefiting from this thread, that much is true.

This experience taught me to look closer at the board rules. They are what they are but there may be certain benefits in ways they can be amended.

12 minutes ago, Red84 said:

 

Most people don't even leave kudos.  His kudos was an extension of his cursory look over the book confirming he received it.  He probably assumed everything about the book was as it should be and therefore didn't review it carefully.  that was a mistake on his part, but not a mistake so fatal as to deny him any sort of recourse once he discovered problems later on.

Incorrect. He offered and coupled with his comment of the 17th it makes a position on the book. Please do not speak to his state of mind because no one can address that.

12 minutes ago, Red84 said:

To me, the most damning part of this entire transaction has been the behavior of the seller.  He went from 0 to 60 in accusing the buyer of defrauding him.  He told the seller to return the book and then got angry when the buyer returned the book. He told the seller to open a paypal claim and then got angry when the buyer opened a paypal claim.  He told the buyer he would send him money when he received the book (which by the way is a full refund.  You don't talk about sending money at a specific time if you are only planning to discuss the amount at a later date.) and now he is holding the book and the money.  And finally, he brings in detectives to find the truth which is laughable in its ridiculousness. 

Please go back and re-read the pm's because you are incorrect. His comment ".... I would rather keep it than return it. I know you were selling some stuff to get out of a pinch, and I'm not interested in putting you back in a pickle. What I kind of think we do is get it graded, see what happens, and then work something out on the difference?" was from his perspective fair. From my perspective, I was suspicious - I could speak to the quality of the book's condition". The suggestion felt wrong.

I responded with "I think the world of Mike - great guy - but there's always the distinct possibility that something can go wrong - and I'd like to limit any risk. Additionally, I'd need to see the book up close again to respond to the damage you've mentioned because I clearly missed it beforehand. Now, I understand that you wish to keep the book and yes, I'm in a pinch. but maybe its best that I simply buy the book back from you. I'm not interested in the downside if the book becomes more damaged. Sorry, but I think this is best. Let me know what you wish to do - I can have the money sent back to you on Monday.

The money back to him was for a buy back - and one for a damaged book. He misinterpreted and jumped to get the book in the mail quicker than a ...

Later when you read the term "refund" it comes by the buyer's way and writing - and not mine.

Now, when I did "lose it" - well, clearly I was angry, but if that's losing it to you all then there appears to be either an extremely low threshold for argument or very soft and easily bent mangina's.  

The truth is he misinterpreted what was written.

12 minutes ago, Red84 said:

The whole thing has been a circus and to go back to your earlier point, people sure are learning to do their due diligence about who they deal with and whether it's worth the trouble.

Yes.

[RockMyAmadeus]

15 minutes ago, Red84 said:

His initial review of the book is not a material fact that affects the outcome.  The claim is that the item he received is not as described.  If you buy an apple from me and when you open the package you see it's apple shaped and thank me.  But a few days later you actually open the bag and discover it's an orange, your earlier incorrect belief that it was an apple doesn't change that what it actually is is an orange.

Sorry, but you're downplaying the buyer's actions, in the face of long-standard practice, both here and on the internet in general.

This isn't an "apple", nor is it actually an "orange"; such a distinction would be quite obvious on even the most cursory inspection.

The buyer didn't say "thank you." The buyer...by leaving kudos in the face of his own self-admitted misgivings about the book's condition...said "this item is satisfactory to me."

If you aren't sure...you don't say ANYTHING UNTIL you have CAREFULLY inspected the item.

Due diligence.

As far as the Paypal claim... sorry, but you're wrong there, too. The fact that the buyer initially expressed satisfaction would absolutely have AN effect... hard to say to what extent, but not "none"... on the decision of Paypal.

If I was the seller, I'd be on the phone with Paypal, and explain that to them in very great detail.

[comix4fun]

RMA, that was one of the most impressive posts ever!!

I didn't actually read it, but you figured out how to nest and parse out all those quotes on the new board!!

I wind up deleting and messing up whenever I try to do that. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

In other words, there's nothing in the buyer's words or actions that says "this is just a CURSORY examination; full review to come at a later date."

Everything the buyer said and did indicates that the transaction was COMPLETED; he even says so! He said that he had concerns about the book's condition, but actively set those aside, and told the seller the book was wonderful, and left kudos.

What part of ANY of that is ANY indication that his initial response was conditioned upon further review...?

It's silly to claim that.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Just now, comix4fun said:

RMA, that was one of the most impressive posts ever!!

I didn't actually read it, but you figured out how to nest and parse out all those quotes on the new board!!

I wind up deleting and messing up whenever I try to do that. 

Smarty pants.

Read it; I may have a career as a blood-sucke.. .er, lawyer after all!

And yes, this board is a pain to try and do all that.

I still haven't figured out the multi-quote function.

[Red84]

5 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Second, no one is denying him ANY sort of recourse...just that he should accept responsibility for the damage, because of his negligence. That doesn't mean he loses $1500! The book, after all, isn't destroyed.

Why should he accept responsibility for the damage if he did not cause the damage?  His failure to review the book thoroughly on receipt does not change whether there is damage.  I would also dispute that not checking the book thoroughly immediately upon receipt amounts to negligence.  If anything, I'd say it is bad practice. He did not wait a month to report what he found; it was a week.  What is a reasonable amount of time? That can be debated.  His failure to report the damage for a week does not eliminate his ability for recourse if the book arrived damaged.

[comix4fun]

Just now, RockMyAmadeus said:

Smarty pants.

Read it; I may have a career as a blood-sucke.. .er, lawyer after all!

And yes, this board is a pain to try and do all that.

I still haven't figured out the multi-quote function.

I'll check it out later. I've got people lined up to pay to argue with me today, so Imma Get Payd!!!